Cycle campaigning

^^^ Ahhhh, upset some I see...

When I were a lad, the term "faggot" meant a ball or roll of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried.

Now, it seems it is a homosexual.

As this site is "so-right-on", I don't want to offend anyone (like I'm worried) so I will change the word to plump-fat-people.

Carry on, fence dwellers...

It's possible to disagree with someone or something without resort to bigotry.

And do fuck off with your disingenuous attempt to justify what you wrote. Show some fucking backbone.

i don't agree with his antics as he sets out to deliberately antagonise the one organisation that could make the most positive impact - TfL.

I've yet to see what he's offering by way of viable alternatives beyond histrionics and affectations. There's plenty of people out there doing good work that don't resort to this sort of am-dram nonsense, yet his fannying about tends to drown out the rest.

You have a point....I also think the whole die in thing is over the top, but as I said, have supported a couple as I respect his commitment, even though I am one of those campaigners myself who is far less flamboyant than he and might be drowned out by his more dramatic approach. It's the nastiness and personal attacks of some of the criticisms which I felt was unjustified. Your post however, is a good model of how to criticise someone's actions or decisions, without all that nasty rubbish cluttering up the argument.

He might well be a committed cycle campaigner, but he's also a bully. I used to be a member of the Southwark Cyclists facebook group until one day he deleted me from it and blocked me from rejoining. Not for anything I'd said or any disruptive behaviour - I don't think I'd ever really posted much in the group beyond adding likes and the odd positive comment. He did it solely because I have in my Facebook contact lists somebody he didn't like and who he had performed a sustained campaign of bullying against for quite some time, purely because (as far as I could make out) they had a different opinion to his on cycle lanes. That seems to be the level of his campaigning. The individual in question has done a great deal to promote cycling as a positive activity which made his continued, very public, personal attacks against a vulnerable individual even shittier than they would be otherwise (though I can't honestly say there's any circumstance at all where behaving like that would be decent human behaviour).

When he's not relentlessly following people around so he can bully them, or trying to silence voices that might say things he doesn't agree with, or hitching a ride on the deaths of total strangers to push his own political agenda, he could be a pillar of the community for all I know. For all I know he spends his spare time adopting orphaned kittens and handcrafting tiny splints for injured hedgehogs while teaching blind children to play the piano. I've no idea, and if the only public activity I've seen him take part in is acting like a spiteful prick, then I'm going to think he's a spiteful prick. Unfortunately I can't really separate my personal opinion of the man as a person from his campaigning, because he was acting like a spiteful prick in his capacity as a campaigner.

That's why my "nasty rubbish" clutters up my opinion of Don.

A 'die-in' is effortlessly just about the most stupid thing you can do if you're claiming to campaign 'for' cycling. A lot of people rather overestimate the impact that protests make. At the end of the day, it's a lot of constructive and positive work, usually behind the scenes, that makes the difference. All you do by excessive messages of danger is put people off cycling. I also happen to think that it's completely tasteless to organise a 'die-in' at the scene of someone's death. It's such warped logic that words fail me when trying to unclutter it. I mean, what are you trying to do, pretending to 'die' in solidarity with the deceased? I've been on many very moving commemorative events for people who died in traffic. It can be done.

It's absolutely true that over emphasising the danger is counter productive. Saw that in action in a Lewisham after the death of Paul Hutcheson on Loampit Vale, almost exactly a year ago. Two women I had recently taught how to ride and who I had persuaded to join a quiet short weekly ride on the Waterlink Way, stopped coming the week after. One woman told me his tragic death had made her "realise" how dangerous cycling was. As for the other woman, her husband was the one who made the decision! He used the example of Mr Hutcheson's death to justify his decision not to "allow" his wife to take part. Didn't matter that the ride was mostly on traffic free paths and quiet back streets, about as far from the conditions on Loampit Vale as you can get for riding in the borough.

For the same reason, I am conflicted about ghost bikes. On the one hand, I understand why we don't want to forget the individual. However, on the other, again it can be a regular reminder of something terrible that is still, statistically, very unlikely to happen. Won't stop me riding, but definitely not going to encourage anyone who might be considering swapping their bus, tube ride or car for a bike. There used to be one at the junction of Brixton Hill and the S Circular. I had arranged to meet someone there, who was already cycling but wanted instruction in dealing with more difficult junctions. They had never seen a ghost bike before and I had to explain it.. (It was in memory of Kate Charles, killed in 2007, I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong). It didn't really help to increase that individual's confidence on the road. We had a fairly good session that day, but she confessed to me recently, she still won't use that junction, even though the ghost bike is now gone.

Someone spoken to me a while ago asking why have the LCC change it's stance to performing die in in the recent months.

They genuinely thought Stop Killing Cyclists! is part of the LCC.

For the same reason, I am conflicted about ghost bikes. On the one hand, I understand why we don't want to forget the individual. However, on the other, again it can be a regular reminder of something terrible that is still, statistically, very unlikely to happen.

I'm actually in favour of roadside memorials, but they should be roadside memorials for all killed in traffic, and be relatively small, still noticeable but small, to be sustainable and not obstructive. Certainly, singling out cycling deaths only is also counter-productive. Why ignore pedestrian deaths, for instance? RoadPeace have got it right with their small signs. They don't tend to get taken down and they don't look as tatty as those bunches of wilted flowers (even if they're renewed regularly). If you were to really go for it, you'd need memorials for car drivers killed, pedestrians killed, etc. If you just stuck up a display of those at the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout, who knows, it might well spur change. Most people are probably completely unaware how many lives have been claimed at that junction.

Someone spoken to me a while ago asking why have the LCC change it's stance to performing die in in the recent months.

They genuinely thought Stop Killing Cyclists! is part of the LCC.

Well, suffice to say that it's not.

A 'die-in' is effortlessly just about the most stupid thing you can do if you're claiming to campaign 'for' cycling. A lot of people rather overestimate the impact that protests make. At the end of the day, it's a lot of constructive and positive work, usually behind the scenes, that makes the difference. All you do by excessive messages of danger is put people off cycling. I also happen to think that it's completely tasteless to organise a 'die-in' at the scene of someone's death. It's such warped logic that words fail me when trying to unclutter it. I mean, what are you trying to do, pretending to 'die' in solidarity with the deceased? I've been on many very moving commemorative events for people who died in traffic. It can be done.

At the end of the day, it's a lot of constructive and positive work, usually behind the scenes that makes the difference

• slightly playing devil's advocate here, but I guess the direct-action guys would say that that work, if it has been happening, hasn't made any meaningful difference in most of London. And they are also engaging with TfL; TfL see them as a group who need to be engaged with, even if the aggregate LFGSS opinion is much harsher.
  

I seem to remember, maybe late 70's or early 80's there was a board outside Southwark Town Hall (then on Peckham Rd). It showed road casualties of all kinds over the years...very public, very visible. No borough seems to do that now.

One of our most problematic junctions in Lewisham (Deptford Bridge) is probably even worse for pedestrians than cyclists, a fact I hadn't realised until we did a photoshoot down there with Darren Johnson...I had to cross it with everyone else in the group, including people representing pedestrians. Awful.

 Tower Hamlets Cyclists last year attached identification cards to the ghost bikes in the borough, and, I believe, try to keep them looking cared for.  One of the saddest sights is the bike for Min Joo Lee at Kings X.  It is in a dreadful state, or was the last time I saw it.  Every time I pass it, I keep thinking I should get in touch with someone about it...anyone know who or what organisation that might be?

At the end of the day, it's a lot of constructive and positive work, usually behind the scenes that makes the difference

• slightly playing devil's advocate here, but I guess the direct-action guys would say that that work, if it has been happening, hasn't made any meaningful difference in most of London. And they are also engaging with TfL; TfL see them as a group who need to be engaged with, even if the aggregate LFGSS opinion is much harsher.
  
  

'Die-ins' aren't direct action, they're just protests. Direct action is things like land occupations. Also, I always have to laugh when people say that the work on improving cycling hasn't been fruitful in London. It's made a massive difference. Fifteen years ago, cycling wasn't even talked about much in public except in newspaper columns talking about 'lawless cyclists' or on footway cycling. Needless to say, there's still a long way to go, but we wouldn't have got here if it hadn't been for a lot of very boring work. When people aren't aware of that, it's a typical case of short memories and being unable to imagine a past different from the present.

Thousands of bodies blocking traffic - and there were thousands of people at the first die-in in November - does constitute direct action, in my opinion.

I agree, of course, that things have improved, my point was that things in much of London haven't improved much.

You write:

*It's made a massive difference. Fifteen years ago, cycling wasn't even talked about much in public except in newspaper columns talking about 'lawless cyclists' or on footway cycling. *

But talking about cycling isn't evidence of improvement - though Boris Johnson thinks it is a good in itself, and sufficient.

The central issue here - people here fear fear begetting fear; suppressing increase in modal share - has been raised many times, and as I have said before I think it's unfortunate that the efforts of a grassroots campaign, notwithstanding the fact that some here think it unhelpful, are routinely denigrated.

Cyclism extremism.

people here fear fear begetting fear

my brane

tell them about it...
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs5-inner
consultation starts today, ends 14th September, for a new CSH from Oval to Pimlico, crossing Vauxhall Bridge.

One thing to note on that proposal is they'll remove all ASLs from around Vauxhall station. Potentially a big change for cyclists not using the blue routes.

Well, it's obviously a very poor traffic scheme, caused by TfL not having the money and/or the inclination to do a proper job on Vauxhall Cross (returning it to full two-way operation). While in principle better north-south permeability is to be welcomed, this is not how you do it.

Are they seriously expecting cycles to ride against the flow of motors in the east side road tunnel (top of the diagram), which is a fearsome pinchpoint at the moment travelling with the flow of general traffic? Or am I reading 'contraflow' wrongly?

I would want it segregated with something more than a kerb, given the pace with which many motors approach this little chicane into the tunnel.

Looks like they would reduce the 5 lanes under the bridge to 4 and widen the northern side 'pavement' into a cycle lane.

We also questioned them about westbound cyclists against the flow through the road tunnel. They say the separator will be a high curb at least as high as those on Southwark Bridge. The width of the lane is critical, we haven't seen real measurements.

Ah, of course.

Still, returning the whole set of one-way systems around there (including the spur down towards The Oval) to two way for all is surely what we (all types of traffic) should be after...

more 'pro tipz' from ill informed NGO. Shit typography makes it worse. who pays for this shit?

more 'pro tipz' from ill informed NGO. Shit typography makes it worse. who pays for this shit?

Yup, mostly bullshit:

• Always single file? Nope, riding side by side just makes you the width of a car and halves the length of the group. The only safety issue here is impatient drivers overtaking dangerously.
  
• Helmets? Should hardly be necessary for pootling down the shops.
  
• Hand signals? Are there different hand signals for turning and overtaking? Most drivers don't understand hand signals other than left and right arm extended so what purpose would it serve.
  
• Brightly coloured clothing? Fuck off. Normal clothing is not a Harry Potter-style invisibility cloak.
  
  

The points about lights, maintaining your bike and stopping at red lights are all fair enough, but hardly worth a poster. So is the point about using the cycle path although it contradicts guidance to the police about how to treat cyclists using the pavement carefully when they need to. The bit about listening to music and mobile phones is contentious at best, but given how it's enforced with regard to drivers it seems pretty officious.